Uh oh another one jumps ship

[Wayward Son]

He's the "rock star" face for the GW cultists, that's what. He's produced a "documentary" that is less than factual, written a book that is widely pumped as gospel on the subject & jets around the world pounding the pulpit of his cause.

As fro your spare air & other comments, while they may not be popular here & even widely derided by many divers, I haven't seen any effort to simply refuse one side of any of those discussions the ability or opportunity to speak their piece & make their case.

That is what Gore & not a few others would like to do when it comes to GW.

 

[Kim]

He's the "rock star" face for the GW cultists, that's what. He's produced a "documentary" that is less than factual, written a book that is widely pumped as gospel on the subject & jets around the world pounding the pulpit of his cause.

So what? Are you really saying that, because it's Gore telling you that's reason enough to disbelief that GW is happening, and humans are a prime cause?

IF you are, don't you think that maybe you are letting your obvious personal feelings towards a politician, cloud your judgment in what is actually a scientific debate?

All Gore did was make a film. He didn't do the studies, and he didn't draw the conclusions - he just reported them.

 

[Wayward Son]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply pointing out what he would do to smother us if he could get his way.

There are no shortage of reasons to be skeptical of the claim that GW is caused by us & no other cause is even possible. There is no shortage of scientists & research that refutes almost every claim made by the side who says they know it all & we'd better do what they tell us is best for us.

It has happened before, many times. It has been much hotter in the past than it is now. It will likely do that again. Even the claim that "it's never happened this fast" has research done with ice cores that refutes that. A pair of scientists from somewhere in europe have been working on that & have found evidence that not only has it happened many times before, it's happened at a far faster rate than was previously believed.

Recorded temperatures? Have you seen any of the info on where many of these data collection points are? It's so embarrassing that they shut down the govt web site that was revealing the info.

If it's science then everything is suspect. Hypothesis & theory that not only may be but must be challenged by the facts of reality. The current claims by one side are in fact being challenged by other scientists with their own data & research.

If it's not science, then it's faith & little details such as facts, proof, validation & reality do not matter.

 

[Kim]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply pointing out what he would do to smother us if he could get his way.

OK........ then I'll wait to see what one of our in-house scientists has to say about the rest of what you are claiming - I'm not a scientist.

However - it's very clear to me that the vast consensus of climate scientists are basically in agreement on this, to the extent that even governments that weren't believers a few years, or even months ago, have now accepted that the documented evidence, and the conclusions, cannot be ignored or denied anymore. It seems to me that those of you still saying that it might not be happening, or it's happened before, or we're not the cause etc etc, are in direct contradiction with your own governments.

On top of that - given that due to the low dollar the price of a barrel of oil is set to go through the US$100 barrier this week, and we're just coming towards winter and increased use of heating oil, the economic imperative is going to become more pronounced as we move forward. Right now the problems in the US housing sector mean that many can't pay for their homes, banks are losing millions if not billions and there are worries of a complete economic meltdown. If people can't afford fuel and power either then something is going to break - and soon.

Personally I don't think we have any choice at all to become less reliant on carbon based energy sources, and to conserve and more efficiently use those that we have now. You can only live in an unsustainable way for so long before it collapses. The collapse might be planetary, or on a case by case individual basis that gathers momentum like raindrops adding together until they become a torrent. It doesn't matter. If you don't live in a balanced way you won't survive, period. Now THAT'S a lesson of nature that we have PLENTY of examples from - and I certainly didn't need Al Gore to tell me that!

 

[Dustinh]

I actually am a scientist. Not only and I a scientist, but I'm working on marine research that might have a direct impact on global climate change. notice I said global climate change, not global warming. This is because there are those even who say that warming in the short term will lead to more clouds, and global cooling in the long term.

Do I believe that the earth is warming faster because of what humans have done to the planet? Yes, I do. Do I believe it's all headed to some cataclysmic end? Not, not really. Do I think we dump too much Carbon into the atmosphere, yes, I do. Do I think we put too much pollution into the planet, yes, I do.

My research currently centers around nutrient cycling between copepods and phytoplankton. The hope is that we can find a way to use copepods as a natural way to sequester carbon. In plain english that means we'd like to get the phytoplankton to grow, the copepods to eat them, and then make poop, which travels to the sea floor.

I'm the first to admit that earth goes through natural cycles of warm and cold, but I also believe we're not currently helping the situation any.

 

[DandyDon]

I think it's pretty clear that a very small portion of the scientists and a number of closed minded people are going to claim the truth ain't true. I do hope more people will stick with the great majority of the researchers and the truth to work toward better solutions, even while those who would deny the facts hide from them.

Edit...

Dustinh and I posted at the same time. Best wishes on your improvements and we do need them...!

 

[deeper thoughts]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply pointing out what he would do to smother us if he could get his way.

There are no shortage of reasons to be skeptical of the claim that GW is caused by us & no other cause is even possible. There is no shortage of scientists & research that refutes almost every claim made by the side who says they know it all & we'd better do what they tell us is best for us.

It has happened before, many times. It has been much hotter in the past than it is now. It will likely do that again. Even the claim that "it's never happened this fast" has research done with ice cores that refutes that. A pair of scientists from somewhere in europe have been working on that & have found evidence that not only has it happened many times before, it's happened at a far faster rate than was previously believed.

Recorded temperatures? Have you seen any of the info on where many of these data collection points are? It's so embarrassing that they shut down the govt web site that was revealing the info.

If it's science then everything is suspect. Hypothesis & theory that not only may be but must be challenged by the facts of reality. The current claims by one side are in fact being challenged by other scientists with their own data & research.

If it's not science, then it's faith & little details such as facts, proof, validation & reality do not matter.

Here in Key West they are switching from oil to some type of bio fuel. The cost of the oil for the transformer was 1100 a month and the cost of the bio fuel is a little more then 1200 a month. Unless my math is wrong this "greening" is costing the taxpayers more money

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

So much mindless dribble, so little time.....

A) The world is warming. Get used to this basic concept. This not only comes from meteorological recording but from a whole slew of measurements - from glacial movements over the last 100s to 10,000's of years to the drift in arid environment ecosystems to the very chemistry of the earths surface and waters... Tie this in with longer term measurements (ice cores, oxygen isotope ratios, tree rings, etc) and you get a very good picture of the earths temperature over the past 10,000 years (and indeed as far back as the Pre-Cambrian).

B) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The science of CO2 is actually very well known. Get used to it.

C) The spike in temperatures over the last 100 years is without prescient, and it is starting to mimic the unnatural recent (past 150 years) spike in atmospheric CO2 (there is a lag as it takes time for the ocean to warm - as recent data is now showing).

D) The scientific literature indicates that we are now in a period of global warming that is progressing at an unprecedented rate, and the consensus of actual, real, breathing scientists, covering a wide range of fields- from biology to geology, chemistry to physics - is overwhelmingly in favour of a man-made component.

E) Many scientists, such as myself, could not care less about what Al Gore is doing - I for one have sweet F-All idea what he is pontificating, having not ever seen any of his media. Ditto scientific opinion does not buckle and collapse like a house of cards if one or two scientists 'move to the over camp'. I look forward to reading their papers – if they ever do publish. I'm sure alarmists have gone too far (as with every ‘Big Science’ issue that gets into mainstream media) but that’s no reason that people should cling to their ill-founded but cherished beliefs, ignore the body of evidence and do nothing.

F) Science is plagued by a disease known as ‘Big Science’ - issues that have become popularized such as GW, ozone hole, etc. Once a theory becomes ‘Big Science’ everyone and their dog hops on the bandwagon, big egos start head butting, and governments and companies start pulling the purse strings of researchers like puppet masters. In the end science comes through with the evidence, but for a while it’s a gruesome spectacle.

G) Before people state get on their soap box on global warming they should learn what it actually referring to, spend a year or five learning what the actual evidence is, and then discuss

Cheers.
Dr Rohan.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

So much mindless dribble, so little time.....

A) The world is warming. Get used to this basic concept. This not only comes from meteorological recording but from a whole slew of measurements - from glacial movements over the last 100s to 10,000's of years to the drift in arid environment ecosystems to the very chemistry of the earths surface and waters... Tie this in with longer term measurements (ice cores, oxygen isotope ratios, tree rings, etc) and you get a very good picture of the earths temperature over the past 10,000 years (and indeed as far back as the Pre-Cambrian).

B) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The science of CO2 is actually very well known. Get used to it.

C) The spike in temperatures over the last 100 years is without prescient, and it is starting to mimic the unnatural recent (past 150 years) spike in atmospheric CO2 (there is a lag as it takes time for the ocean to warm - as recent data is now showing).

D) The scientific literature indicates that we are now in a period of global warming that is progressing at an unprecedented rate, and the consensus of actual, real, breathing scientists, covering a wide range of fields- from biology to geology, chemistry to physics - is overwhelmingly in favour of a man-made component.

E) Many scientists, such as myself, could not care less about what Al Gore is doing - I for one have sweet F-All idea what he is pontificating, having not ever seen any of his media. Ditto scientific opinion does not buckle and collapse like a house of cards if one or two scientists 'move to the over camp'. I look forward to reading their papers – if they ever do publish. I'm sure alarmists have gone too far (as with every ‘Big Science’ issue that gets into mainstream media) but that’s no reason that people should cling to their ill-founded but cherished beliefs, ignore the body of evidence and do nothing.

F) Science is plagued by a disease known as ‘Big Science’ - issues that have become popularized such as GW, ozone hole, etc. Once a theory becomes ‘Big Science’ everyone and their dog hops on the bandwagon, big egos start head butting, and governments and companies start pulling the purse strings of researchers like puppet masters. In the end science comes through with the evidence, but for a while it’s a gruesome spectacle.

G) Before people state get on their soap box on global warming they should learn what it actually referring to, spend a year or five learning what the actual evidence is, and then discuss

Cheers.
Dr Rohan.

I did a simple search and found a long and diverse list on Wikipedia of scientists who dispute one or all of the following conclusions: 1) GW is taking place; b) C02 is responsible c) C02 is rising c) humans are responsible for GW; d) GW will be severe or harmful. This list includes professors of climatology, paleoclimatology, geology, meterology, environmental science etc, most at professor level, some from industry, some from academia, many from elite institutions including Harvard, Columbia, University of London and so on.

It includes William Gray, a professor of atmospheric science and chief hurricane expert in the US, among dozens of others who ARE scientists and, I suspect, know far more about it than you do. Nevertheless, perhaps you can email all of them with your expert opinion and tell them all to get "used to it".

I admit I am no expert, but I AM NOT TAKING A POSITION. I entertain the possibility that GW may be happening exactly as you all say, I don't know. What I question is the CERTAINTY of GW advocates, the 100% "we can't be questioned" attitude despite the growing number of people who DO know climate and who say it isn't so. I know: they are all idiots, on the take, or Republican hacks. Since when are future predictions "guaranteed" in science? Nowhere, it seems, save for climate science.

Why are the opinions of dozens of experts who disagree with you, and know far more about it than you, tossed away? Can't you admit there is still some doubt?

If you can't, then you are no "scientist" at all. You are a believer. There is nothing wrong with faith, it just isn't science.

 

[Kim]

What I question is the CERTAINTY of GW advocates, the 100% "we can't be questioned" attitude despite the growing number of people who DO know climate and who say it isn't so.

Who needs 100%? As soon as the probability exceeds 50% it seems reasonable to follow the odds. The IPCC report didn't claim 100%......... just something above 90% as far as I recall.

Dr Rohan didn't claim 100% certainty in his post - he spoke of "consensus" being "overwhelming". 90% is pretty "overwhelming" in my book. He didn't speak of certainty though, so please stop making things up - it makes you look silly.